Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 8/2015

01-08-2015 | Practical Application

Choice of Outcome Measure in an Economic Evaluation: A Potential Role for the Capability Approach

Author: Paula K. Lorgelly

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 8/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

The last decade has seen a renewed interest in Sen’s capability approach; health economists have been instrumental in leading much of this work. One particular stream of research is the application of the approach to outcome measurement. To date, there have been a dozen attempts (some combined) to operationalise the approach, and produce an outcome measure that offers a broader evaluative space than health-related quality-of-life measures. Applications have so far been confined to public health, physical, mental health and social care interventions, but the capability approach could be of benefit to evaluations of pharmacotherapies and other technologies. This paper provides an introduction to the capability approach, reviews the measures that are available for use in an economic evaluation, including their current applications, and then concludes with a discussion of a number of issues that require further consideration before the approach is adopted more widely to inform resource allocation decisions.
Footnotes
1
The most commonly used instrument to elicit utility values is the EQ-5D [4].
 
2
Another possibility is to utilise cost consequence analysis (CCA) [8]; however, the non-aggregated format of the information means the decision maker must make inferences about aggregation, weighting and attribute values. These decisions are often implicit, which detracts from the need for explicit and transparent decision making.
 
3
Other solutions posited include the use of experienced utility [15] or the measurement of happiness/life satisfaction/wellbeing [16, 17].
 
4
Note that one of the most detailed comparison studies, the multi-instrument comparison (MIC) study includes ICECAP-A and six other MAUIs (EQ-5D-5L, AQoL-8D, HUI3, 15D, QWB and the SF-6D) [37].
 
5
The same could also be said for the first ICECAP instrument, the ICECAP-O. It started with a need to develop an instrument for older people that went beyond health. It was only upon analysing qualitative interview responses that the capability to achieve certain functionings was identified as relevant.
 
6
Note that Jones et al. [40] discussed above is comparing the ICECAP-O with ASCOT.
 
7
Note that in 2005 NICE subsumed the role of the Health Development Agency, and was tasked with providing guidance on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of public health interventions, and in 2013 NICE was given new responsibilities to produce guidance and quality standards for social care.
 
8
ADHD is also associated with a range of co-morbidities [49].
 
9
Notwithstanding the fact that the thresholds that do exist are potentially incorrect [56].
 
Literature
1.
Stoddart A, Hanley J, Wild S, Pagliari C, Paterson M, Lewis S, Sheikh A, Krishan A, Padfield P, McKinstry B. Telemonitoring-based service redesign for the management of uncontrolled hypertension (HITS): cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2013; 3(5).
2.
Pizzi LT, Seligman NS, Baxter JK, Jutkowitz E, Berghella V. Cost and cost effectiveness of vaginal progesterone gel in reducing preterm birth: an economic analysis of the PREGNANT trial. PharmacoEconomics. 2014;32(5):467–78.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Khor S, Beca J, Krahn M, Hodgson D, Lee L, Crump M, Bremner KE, Luo J, Mamdani M, Bell CM. Real world costs and cost-effectiveness of rituximab for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients: a population-based analysis. BMC Cancer. 2014;14(1):586.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
4.
Wisløff T, Hagen G, Hamidi V, Movik E, Klemp M, Olsen JA. Estimating QALY gains in applied studies: a review of cost-utility analyses published in 2010. PharmacoEconomics. 2014;32(4):367–75.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
5.
Neumann PJ, Greenberg D, Olchanski NV, Stone PW, Rosen AB. Growth and quality of the cost-utility literature, 1976–2001. Value Health. 2005;8(1):3–9.PubMedCrossRef
6.
7.
Lorgelly PK, Lawson KD, Fenwick EA, Briggs AH. Outcome measurement in economic evaluations of public health interventions: a role for the capability approach? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2010;7(5):2274–89.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
8.
9.
10.
Payne K, McAllister M, Davies LM. Valuing the economic benefits of complex interventions: when maximising health is not sufficient. Health Econ. 2013;22(3):258–71.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Sen A. Commodities and capabilities. New York: Elsevier; 1985.
12.
Sen A. Capability and well-being. In: Sen A, Nussbaum MC, editors. The quality of life. Oxford: Claredon Press; 1993.
13.
Coast J, Smith R, Lorgelly P. Should the capability approach be applied in health economics? Health Econ. 2008;17(6):667–70.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Coast J, Smith RD, Lorgelly P. Welfarism, extra-welfarism and capability: The spread of ideas in health economics. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(7):1190–8.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Kahneman D, Wakker PP, Sarin R. Back to bentham? Explorations of experienced utility. Q J Econ. 1997;112(2):375–405.CrossRef
16.
Di Tella R, MacCulloch R. Some uses of happiness data in economics. J Econ Perspect. 2006;20(1):25–46.CrossRef
17.
Dolan P, Peasgood T, White M. Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being. J Econ Psychol. 2008;29(1):94–122.CrossRef
18.
Burchardt T. Agency goals, adaptation and capability sets. J Hum Dev Capab. 2009;10(1):3–19.CrossRef
19.
Sugden R. Welfare, resources, and capabilities: a review of inequality reexamined by Amartya Sen. J Econ Lit. 1993;31(4):1947–62.
20.
Culyer AJ. The normative economics of health care finance and provision. Oxf Rev Econ Policy. 1989;5(1):34–56.CrossRef
21.
Coast J, Kinghorn P, Mitchell P. The development of capability measures in health economics: opportunities, challenges and progress. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2015;8(2):119–26.CrossRef
22.
Anand P, Hunter G, Carter I, Dowding K, Guala F, Van Hees M. The development of capability indicators. J Hum Dev Capab. 2009;10(1):125–52.CrossRef
23.
24.
Nussbaum MC. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2000.CrossRef
25.
26.
Simon J, Anand P, Gray A, Rugkåsa J, Yeeles K, Burns T. Operationalising the capability approach for outcome measurement in mental health research. Soc Sci Med. 2013;98:187–96.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Vergunst F, Jenkinson C, Burns T, Simon J. Application of Sen’s capability approach to outcome measurement in mental health research: psychometric validation of a novel multi-dimensional instrument (OxCAP-MH). Hum Welf. 2014;3:1–4.
28.
Greco G. Assessing women’s quality of life in rural malawi: a capabilities index. PhD Thesis, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. 2013.
29.
Greco G, Skordis-Worrall J, Mkandawire B, Mills A. What is a good life? Selecting capabilities to assess women’s quality of life in rural Malawi. Soc Sci Med. 2015;130:69–78.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Kinghorn P, Robinson A, Smith RD. Developing a capability-based questionnaire for assessing well-being in patients with chronic pain. Soc Indic Res. 2015;120:897–916.CrossRef
31.
Grewal I, Lewis J, Flynn T, Brown J, Bond J, Coast J. Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: Preferences or capabilities? Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(8):1891–901.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Al-Janabi H, Flynn TN, Coast J. Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(1):167–76.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
33.
Sutton EJ, Coast J. Development of a supportive care measure for economic evaluation of end-of-life care using qualitative methods. Palliat Med. 2014;28(2):151–7.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Best–worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ. 2007;26(1):171–89.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Coast J, Flynn TN, Natarajan L, Sproston K, Lewis J, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(5):874–82.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Burns T, Rugkåsa J, Molodynski A, Dawson J, Yeeles K, Vazquez-Montes M, Voysey M, Sinclair J, Priebe S. Community treatment orders for patients with psychosis (OCTET): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2013;381(9878):1627–33.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Richardson J, Khan MA, Iezzi A, Maxwell A. Comparing and explaining differences in the magnitude, content, and sensitivity of utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB, and AQoL-8D multiattribute utility instruments. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(3):276–91.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Davis JC, Bryan S, McLeod R, Rogers J, Khan K, Liu-Ambrose T. Exploration of the association between quality of life, assessed by the EQ-5D and ICECAP-O, and falls risk, cognitive function and daily function, in older adults with mobility impairments. BMC Geriatrics. 2012;12(1):65.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
39.
Makai P, Looman W, Adang E, Melis R, Stolk E, Fabbricotti I. Cost-effectiveness of integrated care in frail elderly using the ICECAP-O and EQ-5D: does choice of instrument matter? Eur J Health Econ. 2014. doi:10.​1007/​s10198-014-0583-7
40.
Jones C, Edwards RT, Hounsome B. Qualitative exploration of the suitability of capability based instruments to measure quality of life in family carers of people with dementia. ISRN Fam Med. 2014;2014:9.
41.
42.
NIHR HTA programme. The PRE-EMPT Trial: Preventing REcurrance of Endometriosis by Means of long acting Progestogen Therapy, Protocol, NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme HTA, no: 11/114; 2013.
43.
Malley J, Netten A. Measuring outcomes of social care. Res Policy Plan. 2009;27(2):85–96.
44.
Netten A, Burge P, Malley J, Potoglou D, Towers A-M, Brazier J, Flynn T, Forder J. Outcomes of social care for adults: developing a preference-weighted measure. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(16):1–166.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Netten A, Jones K, Knapp M, Fernandez JL, Challis D, Glendinning C, Jacobs S, Manthorpe J, Moran N, Stevens M. Personalisation through individual budgets: does it work and for whom? Br J Soc Work. 2012;42(8):1556–73.CrossRef
46.
Bäumker T, Netten A, Darton R. Costs and outcomes of an extra care housing scheme in England. J Hous Elder. 2010;24(2):151–70.CrossRef
47.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2008.
48.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance. 3rd ed. London: NICE; 2012.
49.
Secnik K, Swensen A, Lage MJ. Comorbidities and costs of adult patients diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. PharmacoEconomics. 2005;23(1):93–102.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Loe IM, Feldman HM. Academic and educational outcomes of children with ADHD. J Pediatr Psychol. 2007;32(6):643–54.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Fletcher J, Wolfe B. Long-term consequences of childhood ADHD on criminal activities. J Mental Health Policy Econ. 2009;12(3):119.
52.
Matza LS, Secnik K, Mannix S, Sallee FR. Parent-proxy EQ-5D ratings of children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in the US and the UK. PharmacoEconomics. 2005;23(8):777–90.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Payne K, Thompson AJ. Economics of pharmacogenomics: rethinking beyond QALYs? Curr Pharmacogenomics Pers Med. 2013;11(3):187–95.CrossRef
54.
Henderson C, Knapp M, Fernández J-L, Beecham J, Hirani SP, Cartwright M, Rixon L, Beynon M, Rogers A, Bower P. Cost effectiveness of telehealth for patients with long term conditions (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested economic evaluation in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2013;346:f1035.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Davis JC, Bryan S, Marra CA, Sharma D, Chan A, Beattie BL, Graf P, Liu-Ambrose T. An economic evaluation of resistance training and aerobic training versus balance and toning exercises in older adults with mild cognitive impairment. PLoS One. 2013;8(5):e63031.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
56.
Claxton K, Martin S, Soares M, Rice N, Spackman E, Hinde S, Devlin N, Smith PC, Sculpher M. Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Health Technol Assess. 2015; 19(14).
57.
Sen AK. Choice, welfare and measurement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1997.
58.
Mitchell P, Roberts T, Barton P, Coast J. Applying the sufficient capability approach in health economic evaluations. In: presented at the Health Economists’ Study Group: Exeter. 2013.
59.
Netten A, Beadle-Brown J, Caiels J, Forder J, Malley J, Smith N, Towers A-M. ASCOT: adult social care outcomes toolkit. Main guidance v2.1. In: PSSRU discussion paper 2716/3. 2011.
60.
Keeley T, Al-Janabi H, Lorgelly P, Coast J. A qualitative assessment of the content validity of the ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-5L and their appropriateness for use in health research. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e85287.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
61.
van Leeuwen KM, Bosmans JE, Jansen APD, Hoogendijk EO, van Tulder MW, van der Horst HE, Ostelo RW. Comparing measurement properties of the EQ-5D-3L, ICECAP-O, and ASCOT in frail older adults. Value Health. 2015;18(1):35–43.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Lorgelly P. Cultural adaptation and capability instruments: more than translation and re-valuation. In: presented at the 3rd ICECAP Users Group Workshop: Birmingham. 2014.
Metadata
Title
Choice of Outcome Measure in an Economic Evaluation: A Potential Role for the Capability Approach
Author
Paula K. Lorgelly
Publication date
01-08-2015
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 8/2015
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0275-x

Other articles of this Issue 8/2015

PharmacoEconomics 8/2015 Go to the issue

Letter to the Editor

Does it Matter Whether Canada’s Separate Health Technology Assessment Process for Cancer Drugs has an Economic Rationale?

Original Research Article

A Checklist for Reporting Valuation Studies of Multi-Attribute Utility-Based Instruments (CREATE)

Letter to the Editor

The Silence in Hoch et al.’s Commentary about the Rationale for and Objective(s) of Canada’s Separate HTA Process for Cancer Drugs: The Importance of Transparency and Accountability when Allocating Taxpayers’ Dollars

Systematic Review

Cost Effectiveness of Preventive Treatment for Tuberculosis in Special High-Risk Populations

Original Research Article

Characterizing Heterogeneity Bias in Cohort-Based Models

Systematic Review

The Economic Costs of Type 2 Diabetes: A Global Systematic Review